Pittsburgher

My husband and I are flying to Amsterdam in October for the Marathon. I've been planning 4 days there but am now wondering (from a post here) if Haarlem is a better location?

We then leave on Monday with three days before going to Paris on Thursday, for two nights and then our flight home.

My question: I'm looking for someplace interesting for the middle section of our itinerary. I'm considering Bruges, Brussels or possibly Lille as a base.

We've been to Paris several times but not to any of the other locations. Planning to travel by train for city-to-city, since I've been advised that it's difficult to pick up a car in one country and leave it in another.

All suggestions welcome, including hotel ideas. Thanks!

zeppole

I have always preferred Antwerp and Gent to Brussels or Brugge.

The food and drink in Antwerp is fantassic, and the town has a wonderful mix of medieval and early 20th c. architecture. Gent is far smaller, and much more touristic, but it has terrific charm.

If you pick Brugge as a base (which you will no doubt be encouraged to do), try to stay out of the touristic core around the central market. It is swamped with daytrippers and tour groups. Also, if you are using it as a base for daytrips by train, be aware that the train station is about a 30 minute walk from the historic center. It's closer to the Beguinage.

While the historic center of Brussels is a show stopper, the rest of the very large city is quite ugly. Do visit the Horta museum, however, if you are at all interested in the decorative arts.

I've never been to Haarlem or Lille, but I think Amsterdam is not a frantic city, and it is charming and peaceful if you pick a spot to stay on the canals or in the Jordaan. It's a great walking city.

dwzemens

I cannot comment on Antwerp or Brussels, but we spent two nights in Brugge in 2006 after spending three nights in Amsterdam, and on our way to spending five nights in Paris.

Our trip was very much like yours will be. We loved Brugge, and stayed at the Absolut Verhulst B&B -- about a five minute walk outside the central square, but miles and miles away from the tourist area, if you get my drift.

Three nights in Brugge would be too long, in my opinion, but if you can spend two nights there you will love it.

CRose10328

Good luck on your Amsterdam marathon. I ran the Berlin marathon last fall and it was a great experience. A little different counting kilometers instead of miles but very interesting.

I can't comment on where to spend your time between Amsterdam and Paris. We did spend time in both of those cities while we were there. Loved Paris. Amsterdam was interesting, but a couple of days was enough for us. I would have loved to have had a day or two in Bruges though.

As far as transportation, DO NOT rent a car in Amsterdam. We were visiting friends in Duesseldorf and rented a car there and decided we would drive to Amsterdam since we had paid for the vehicle. BIG mistake. If you do that you should park on the outskirts and take public transportation in. Our husbands dropped us at our hotel and then spent an hour and a half looking for a parking space that was very expensive. Then on the way out, oh, we had Greta (that's what we called our GPS), but she seemed to be very confused and kept recalculating and we went round and round. Husbands were stressed and it was a very unpleasant experience to say the least. Took an hour to get to a main road out of the city.

Public transportation is wonderful in Europe. We took trains all over as we were there 2 and a half weeks and only rented a car for 5 days. It's so easy to do and relatively inexpensive. You just sit back and watch the scenery go by.

Enjoy your trip. I'm so jealous!

Cindy

hetismij

Stay in Amsterdam rather than Haarlem, especially if it is your first trip. Much better for your husband for the marathon too, rather than having to struggle with the train in and out on marathon day.

For the middle days Antwerp, Gent or Brugge spring to mind. Most people will say stay in Brugge, but I agree with zeppole that Antwerp or Gent are nicer places to stay.

smrt2

I can't speak to Brugges, Gent, or Antwerp, but I would second the suggestion you skip Brussels.

Pittsburgher

I've spent most of the day online trying to fill in the middle three days, to no avail. Friends who live near Amsterdam have offered to take us to Bruges for a day, so I'm now looking for some smaller, interesting town between Brussels and Paris that would make a good base for our three nights. Lille? Antwerp? Any other suggestions? Not really interested in a big city, but someplace large enough to have interesting restaurants and places to wander.

Thanks again . . .

zeppole

It's hard to imagine a place in Belgium that doesn't have good food.

I've never been but if you don't like the suggestions of Gent and Antwerpen then how about ...

Leuven?

http://www.visitbelgium.com/leuven.htm

But it sounds like you want to go to Lille.

travlsolo2

I vote for Haarlem and Brugge. And why avoid tourist areas in center of Brugge -- that's where the sights are, and that's what most of us are, tourists. In October I doubt you'll see hordes anyway.

slangevar

I did almost the same trip last year (minus the marathon), and was happy with 3 days in Amsterdam. I don't know what the weather will be like in October... if it's nice, there's just nothing like riding a bike through Vondelpark (sp?), having a coffee canalside, and seeing the fantastic museums and landmarks.

One day in Haarlem sounds smart.

Re: Belgium, I third the idea of skipping Brussels. It felt like the Detroit of Brussels (sorry Detroit & Brussels residents).

I loved Brugge, but it is touristy. One note: they do have buses that run from the train station into town. I chose to walk it, though, because you go through a lush park with one of the most beautiful graffiti murals I've ever seen.

slangevar

Sorry - should've been the "Detroit of BELGIUM!"